The Supreme Court Endrew F. decision and explaining implementation of the new standard in schools

Описание: I had a question wanting me to explain the ENDREW F. Supreme Court decision and getting my viewpoint on whether the decision is being implemented correctly or whether I'm seeing a slow change with the school districts.
The high point is that the prior SCOTUS case that was the controlling guide on what a FAPE is was the Rowley decision from the 1980s. The case involved a young girl with a learning disability and this was her singular educational performance area of need. So, the decision was tailored towards that case scenario.
Though the IDEA has been largely the same since that Rowley decision, I believe schools naturally focused on academics only (as that was the SCOTUS guide from the Rowley decision). The consequence? It diminished the intent and mandate of the IDEA to focus on the child's "unique needs" and that is tied to their diagnosis and how that manifests across the school environment. In defining what specialized instruction is under the IDEA, it blends the requirement of IEP teams to look at a child's 'unique needs' across their educational performance areas but little to no focus was really applied to understand what "educational performance areas" meant.
Educational performance areas is defined as Academics, Communication, Social/Emotional Development and Functional/Independent Living skills. Rowley didn't really address that because the circumstances of that case pertained to a learning disability only and no other expanded need.
Fast forward to Endrew F..... this child is moderately/severely impacted by his disability/diagnosis of Autism. What might not be known is that the parents lost at Due Process, lost at Federal District Court level and lost at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals level yet the Supreme Court believed it was a good case to reset and explain the intent of the IDEA and recenter the definition of what a substantive FAPE is.
A substantive FAPE, from the SCOTUS decision, requires that a team consider the child's individual circumstances (which is tied to "unique needs" and tied to their diagnosis (not just their eligibility category). How is this found? Through evaluations/assessments that use a variety of measures in the child's preferred mode of communication that would produce the most reliable results (what we call present levels of performance or baselines). From there we can identify all of the child's deficits across those educational performance areas (which is their 'unique needs' or individual circumstances) and create measurable tangible goals. Those goals across the educational performance areas then lead the team to how much specialized instructional time, using what instructional approach and in what setting is required for the child to reach that goal. The consideration also leads to what accommodations or supports would be needed to push into the general education setting to support and/or optimize the instructional opportunities. Lastly, what other services/therapies may be needed that relate to those educational performance areas in order to help the child reach their goals and make tangible measurable progress across those identified areas of need in Academics, Communication, Social/Emotional Development and/or Functional/Independent Living Skills. We call those Related Services.
This is the potential awesomeness of the Endrew F. decision.... the biggest problem that I've experienced since the decision? It's in general school staff understanding and competency of the Endrew F. decision and that new standard of analysis. Once again, the law itself hasn't changed and the procedure hasn't changed.... it was just the reset on the standard of what a FAPE is. This is 100% the legal responsibility of the school district.... the IDEA is a civil rights law that just happens to come with funding.... it is an anti-government piece of law.... it is to correct historical neglect, inequity and discrimination and to safeguard against it now (which still happens.... all the time). Do I think that these current errors are due to evil or bad people? Absolutely not.... I think most of the ongoing abuses are connected with ignorance of doing it right, knowing the law, having the right resources, being supported properly and, without those things, falling into the natural human default of laziness and/or soft bigotry.
Endrew F. standard must be taught and most of the school district get their training from other school personnel, state departments of education and mainly board attorneys.... as the Endrew F standard is an expansive explanation that goes beyond Academics, this becomes more an exercise of avoidance and intentional ignoring until someone makes them. Why? The decision didn't come with keep it simple instructions, a mandate to overhaul training protocols, a requirement for competency on the new standard or more funding....
So.... it's our job to know and through our knowledge and advocacy... raise the bar to where SCOTUS set it under Endrew F.